Dukes v. USA
Filing
1
NOTICE of the court's intent to consider the statute of limitations sua sponte. Petitioner has 15 days to file a supplemental brief. The government will have 10 days from the filing of petitioner's brief to file a response. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 7/27/2015. (cahe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
SOLOMON DUKES, JR.,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:94-cr-00589-DCN-2
No. 2:12-cv-00924-DCN
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO CONSIDER STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS
The court informs the parties that it is inclined to consider, sua sponte, the
timeliness of petitioner Solomon Dukes, Jr.’s (“Dukes”) motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his federal sentence brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 See Day v.
McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006) (finding that district courts are permitted, but not
required, to consider the timeliness of a habeas petition sua sponte); see also United
States v. Harris, 582 F. App’x 241 (4th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (noting that “[a] district
court is ‘permitted, but not obliged, to consider, sua sponte, the timeliness of a . . .
prisoner’s habeas petition.” (quoting Day, 547 U.S. at 209) (alteration in original));
Taylor v. United States, 518 F. App’x 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2013) (affirming district court’s
sua sponte dismissal of § 2255 petition on timeliness grounds citing Day).
1
The court notes that the government has raised a statute of limitations argument,
although not until the hearing held on December 3, 2014—more than two and a half years
after Dukes initially filed his petition. The government had not previously raised the
issue in any brief or pleading. Therefore, the court is inclined to treat the defense as
forfeited and will raise the issue sua sponte. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
733 (1993) (“[F]orfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right.”); Wood v.
Milyard, --- U.S. ---, 132 S. Ct. 1826, 1833 (2012) (“[A]ffirm[ing] a federal district
court’s authority to consider a forfeited habeas defense.”). However, the parties may
address this issue in their briefing if they wish.
1
By this notice, the court provides the parties, as required, “fair notice and an
opportunity to present their positions.” See Day, 547 U.S. at 210. Petitioner shall have
15 days from the date of this order to file a brief addressing the statute of limitations
issue. The government shall have 10 days from the filing of Dukes’s brief to file a
response.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
July 27, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?